ArticleArXiv2024
Gene Set Summarization Using Large Language Models.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular biologists frequently interpret gene lists derived from high-throughput experiments and computational analysis. This is typically done as a statistical enrichment analysis that measures the over- or under-representation of biological function terms associated with genes or their properties, based on curated assertions from a knowledge base (KB) such as the Gene Ontology (GO). Interpreting gene lists can also be framed as a textual summarization task, enabling Large Language Models (LLMs) to use scientific texts directly and avoid reliance on a KB. TALISMAN (Terminological ArtificiaL Intelligence SuMmarization of Annotation and Narratives) uses generative AI to perform gene set function summarization as a complement to standard enrichment analysis. This method can use different sources of gene functional information: (1) structured text derived from curated ontological KB annotations, (2) ontology-free narrative gene summaries, or (3) direct retrieval from the model. We demonstrate that these methods are able to generate plausible and biologically valid summary GO term lists for an input gene set. However, LLM-based approaches are unable to deliver reliable scores or p-values and often return terms that are not statistically significant. Crucially, in our experiments these methods were rarely able to recapitulate the most precise and informative term from standard enrichment analysis. We also observe minor differences depending on prompt input information, with GO term descriptions leading to higher recall but lower precision. However, newer LLM models perform statistically significantly better than the oldest model across all performance metrics, suggesting that future models may lead to further improvements. Overall, the results are nondeterministic, with minor variations in prompt resulting in radically different term lists, true to the stochastic nature of LLMs. Our results show that at this point, LLM-based methods are unsuitable as a replacement for standard term enrichment analysis, however they may provide summarization benefits for implicit knowledge integration across extant but unstandardized knowledge, for large sets of features, and where the amount of information is difficult for humans to process.
Identifiers
37292480PMC10246080W4379966467What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.